|




| |
|
|
|
|
| |
"Remakes" |
| |
Example #1:
The Postman Always Rings Twice and Ossessione |
|
|
| |
Example #2: La Femme Nikita and Point of No
Return |
|
|
| |
Example
#3: Yojimbo and The Last Man Standing |
|
|
|
* Please note that these examples are of
various lengths and did not all receive the same grades but are
interesting, personal and well-written. All three have
enough examples or a specific scene analysis. None of
these examples were asked to compare their ideas to those of
professional movie critics. Outside sources and
comparing their ideas to yours are required for your papers. |
| |
|
|
| |
Example #1:
Comparison of The Postman Always Rings
Twice and Ossessione |
|
|
| |
While the two films The Postman Always Rings Twice
and Ossessione share similarities due to being based on
the novel by James Cain, the similarities end at the plot and
the film noir element in both movies. Cain’s novel
dramatizes the dark side of human obsession through greed, lust,
and murder and the Italian version of the film follows the novel
employing realism to highlight those aspects of the human
condition. The American version, however, loses the intent of
Cain’s work by falling into the trap of exploiting capitalism,
materialism, and the glamour of Hollywood. Those elements
combine to lessen the impact of the emotion involved in the
stony and turns the film into a trite representation of
humanity.
The
first difference between the two films The Postman Always
Rings Twice and Ossessione lies in the titles. The
Italian film, Ossessione, translates to obsession
and indicates theature of the movie. The Postman Always Rings
Twice, the same title as the book, plays a role in the
ending of the film but because of the director’s changes from
the original novel, it has little meaning to the viewer and
seems, not only contrived, but out of place in what should be a
gritty tale. By employing the artifice of explaining the title
to the viewer, Tay Gamett’s representation comes off as
condescending and unappealing. The believability of the lead
character, already tarnished by the lack of true emotion evident
in the portrayal by John Garfield, becomes laughable in this
final scene where he finds redemption for his acts in the
analogous interpretation of a person waiting for a letter.
While
both works rely on the novel by James M. Cain, the Italian
version, which was pirated from the author, adheres to the
author’s intent while the American version alters plot, story,
and the subtle nuances that make the tale believable. The
bastardization of the novel by director Tay Garnett weakens the
plot and in many places renders the storyline unbelievable. The
viewer is left with a sense of dissatisfaction as unaccounted
for instances develop in the film that suspected you since the
bathtub incident" by the district attorney causes the viewer to
snort inexisted.
Ossessione, on the other hand, relies on the novel to build
a convincing case against Gino, producing witnesses whose
testimony leads police investigators to the murderer. The
dramatic irony produced as Gino and Giovanna struggle with their
love, mistrust, and fear of each other while police are
preparing for their arrest, builds suspense for the viewer and
develops into a struggle between wanting to see justice done and
wanting the lovers to succeed in defying authority and building
a lasting relationship.
Frank
Summers has not displayed the remorse or regret expected of a
man waiting on death row and finds his salvation through the
idea that he is not dying for Cora’s death but for that of her
husband. This becomes a sharp contrast to the Italian film where
Gino will demonstrate true remorse, anguish, regret, and fear at
the results of his actions. He confides in a prostitute the
truth of his act and asks her "Am I evil?" telling all that his
opinion of himself has altered and he no longer recognizes his
humanity.
Both
characters will face a reawakening of self when they hear the
news that Cora/Giovanna are pregnant. All four characters regard
this event as one that redeems them of the murder by bringing a
life to replace a life. In neither film do the characters view
the death of the husband as a tragedy, but rather an
inconvenience that has tested their love and commitment to each
other. Ultimately, both couples will experience the same loss
and Cain’s adeptness at employing a Shakespearean sense of
tragedy to the event will lead the audience to realize that
there is no reparation.
Both
movies adhere to the novel with the death of the female lead.
Again, however, the American version fails far short of the
Italian in terms of reality and believability. Cora and Frank
are returning from the beach, where they have renewed their love
for each other and cast aside their mistrust. In one of only two
scenes where the lovers kiss, Cora kisses Frank and then with
eyes widening in horror she screams for him to watch out. The
car skids, hits the side of the bridge and as Frank jumps from
the vehicle to stare back, Cora’s hand falls over the driver’s
seat and her lipstick rolls from her lifeless fingers.
The
scene, intending to shock the audience, falls far short of the
mark and leaves baffled viewers wondering how a car traveling as
slow as theirs was could possibly create an impact of that
magnitude and kill the unlucky Cora. Here, the recreation of the
scene in a movie setting relies on the shock, not the value of
the scene. Garnett further weakens the moment by flashing
instantly to newspaper headlines announcing the death of Cora
Summers and the indictment of her husband Frank for murder. The
audience sees none of Frank’s reaction to the death of the woman
he is supposed to be obsessively in love with, is carrying his
child, and whom he committed murder for.
Ossessione outshines the American version with the same
scene. The lovers, filmed on the beach in each other’s arms,
awaken and realize that the police are on to them. They scurry
for home, pack up and depart, intending to be far away and free
by the time the police get there. While driving down the road,
they share the same kiss as Frank and Cora, and the speed of
their vehicle is evident as they attempt to pass a slower truck
in front of them. Billowing clouds of exhaust corning off the
other vehicle highlight the surrealism of the scene. As Gino
attempts the pass, another car forces them off the road and the
car teeters for a moment on the embankment. The audience waits
with bated breath for the lovers to escape the vehicle when it
rolls, tumbling down the slope to rest at the bottom in a
mangled heap.
Here,
director Visconti and lead actor, Massimo Girotti demonstrates
true fllm-making genius. Gino pulls the broken body of his lover
from the vehicle and the shot pans to her lifeless body
highlighting a deep slash across her neck. Sweat, blood, and
tears mingle on the actor’s face as he drags Giovanna to the
road and refusing to relinquish her body, cradles her in his
arms and sinks to the ground. Police gather round as silent
witnesses to the tragedy and to take the surviving murderer into
custody. The film ends with no trite statements, no news
flashes, and no analogies. The impact of the raw emotion that
Gino feels is more than enough to demonstrate the totality of
his loss.
Garnett’s film shows a glamorized version of obsession that
trivializes the darker aspects of human nature with the idea
that love provides redemption. Visconti, on the other hand,
shows the darkness of obsession. He relies on an emotionally
charged film where the resemblance between love and obsession
merge. His interpretation portrays the frailty of humanity where
circumstances provide the reality. |
|
Return
to Top of Page |
|
|
| |
Example #2:
La Femme Nikita
& Point of No Return |
|
|
|
La Femme Nikita
and Point of No Return tell the story of a strung-out
street junkie, who just happens to be beautiful beneath her
grime. Both characters, Nikita and Maggie, nonchalantly kill a
cop after a botched robbery attempt on a pharmacy. In both
movies, the women are sentenced to death for their crime. This
does not happen, however. They awaken in a white room where they
are told, by an enigmatic man named Bob, that the world thinks
that they are dead. Nikita and Maggie are offered a choice: they
either work for a secret government organization or die.
Point of No Return’s
plot is almost identical to that of La Femme Nikita. The
major difference between the two movies is in the character
representation of the female protagonist.
Anne Parillaud portrays
Nikita in the original film, La Femme Nikita. She differs
from Bridget Fonda’s character, Maggie, in many respects.
Parillaud’s Nikita is much more manic; she’s wild. During the
course of the movie, she stabs a cop in the hand with a pencil,
and bites one character’s ear. She’s a force of nature. One gets
the feeling during the first half of the movie that she’s not
playing with a full deck of cards. After her transition from a
street junkie to a sophisticated woman, she becomes highly
emotional. There are several moments during the second hour of
the movie where she is in near hysterics.
Parillaud’s portrayal
also differs from Fonda’s in regards to her believability as
someone capable of the athleticism that the character exhibits.
Parillaud looks too willowy and delicate to pull off the feats
that Nikita does. She looks awkward firing a gun, as if it’s too
heavy for her. On the other hand, Bridget pulls off the action
sequences more adequately though even she looks ridiculous at
times carrying a huge gun.
Bridget Fonda’s
Americanized Nikita, Maggie, is much more sullen than
Parillaud’s. She’s less wild, though she does many of the things
that Nikita does in La Femme Nikita, such as stabbing a
cop with a pencil. Her motives, however, appear different. She
seems to act out because she’s angry. She doesn’t give the
impression that she finds any glee in what she does.
Fonda’s character is
less emotional than Parillaud’s. In La Femme Nikita, Nikita
cries so much towards the end of the movie that one has to
wonder why this secret organization would have chosen her as an
assassin. On the other hand, Bridget Fonda is much steelier. She
keeps her calm even after her mission has gone terribly awry,
and she has to call in for a "cleaner," played by Harvey Keitel,
who eventually tries to kill her. Even after that. she is still
able to keep her wits about her. It’s not that she’s an
automaton. She is capable of emotions, but she is more
understated. She isn’t prone to the hysterics that Parillaud’s
character is prone to.
Simply put, Fonda and
Parillaud explore different aspects of the lead role’s psyche.
Fonda’s character is angry young woman who was abandoned by her
mother at a young age. Parillaud’s character is a young woman
who has gone feral due to her living on the streets. At the
center of both characters is the feeling that they are both lost
and unloved. |
|
|
|
Return
to Top of Page |
|
|
|
Example #3:
Yojimbo & The Last Man Standing |
|
|
|
He lives alone. He moves
from town to town with no destination, only in search of money
to help him survive. He has no mercy towards the wicked and he
keeps no alliances; only the highest bidder is his friend. And
yet, when you think that he is a totally wicked soul, his
conscience comes and betrays his so-called ‘morals’, and he puts
his own life in jeopardy to help another cursed soul. In the
end, just when you think he has drawn his last breath, he comes
to exact his revenge. Then he moves on to the next town to seek
new work and other tired souls in need of a hero.
This is the basis for
the two movies I watched, Yojimbo, and Last Man
Standing. For the sake of not causing any confusion, I’ll be
using the character names from the Last Man Standing
version. John Smith is a bodyguard for hire. John enters a
desolate town knowing no one, only searching for work to get him
further down the road. The town is controlled by two rival
gangs, the Strazi gang and the Doyle gang. Neither gang is
exactly professional. Once John notices the inefficiencies of
the gangs, he realizes there is money to be made and comments
that scum like these are better off dead. He then focuses on
finding somewhere to stay. The only person John has honest
discussions with is with Joe, the shopkeeper who runs the bar
and hotel where he stays. Joe has seen too much violence and
just wants to be left alone.
The story lines for
Yojimbo and Last Man Standing are quite similar, but
there are a few small differences. In Yojimbo, the rival
gangs were once partners and after a feud were split up~while in
Last Man Standing the Strazi and Doyle gangs had
always hated each other. In Yojimbo, the two gangs have a
truce in the middle of the film, while in Last Man
Standing, the gangs have this truce from the beginning. And in
Yojimbo the rival gangs are backed by merchants, but in
Last Man Standing, the gangs are all alone in
raising profits.
I think the biggest
difference between the movies is the fact that the Last Man
Standing version has John Smith as a narrator. In Yojimbo,
there are long stretches where Sanjuro (John Smith in Last
Man Standing) simply walks
around for a few minutes with no outcome shown, and just moves
on to the next scene. And while I realize that this was a
typical method used for Japanese westerns, I can’t say I find it
very effective. Personally, I prefer having the narrator for the
simple fact that if you’re watching Yojimbo, you’re
playing a guessing game as to what he is thinking. In Last
Man Standing, you know what he is thinking, and you can get
an idea about where John Smith is going with the gangs, and you
know his intentions aren’t all horrible. In Yojimbo, you
think Sanjuro is totally evil until he shows mercy and saves the
woman and by then the movie is nearly over. I find it wiser to
have the narrator and let John Smith convince you of the wisdom
of his ideas and his methods. Not only is he easier to like, I
think he is easier to understand.
Another basic difference
is the vices of John Smith (Sanjuro). In Yojimbo, Sanjuro
only drinks. He never has any love interest and his only vices
are drinking and killing. But in Last Man Standing, one
of the first things John Smith does once he is settled is go and
pick up a prostitute. Besides women, John Smith drinks much more
frequently than the Sanjuro character. Once again, I have to say
I prefer Last Man Standing in their treatment of
the main character and his vices. Much of the movie is spent on
trying to portray the idea that John Smith (Sanjuro) is such an
evil and immoral person. You would think that if he were that
immoral his vices would be greater in number. Therefore, John
Smith seems more realistic than Sanjuro, the assassin with
morals.
A final major difference
between Yojirnbo and Last Man Standing is the
development of female characters. In Yojimbo, Sanjuro has
very little contact with women, and the ones he does meet, he
never builds any kind of relationship with them. To me he seems
a little inhuman in this regard since a basic need for all
people is companionship, and it appears the only companion
Sanjuro desires is his sword. In Last Man Standing, John
Smith finds Lucy, the girl of main gang boss Strazi. And even
though he mainly uses her for information, once Lucy has been
badly mistreated, John gives her money to help her leave and go
home. This is the fatal flaw of Yojimbo: they show a man
who is a cold-blooded killer, and then at the very end they try
to give you an idea that he isn’t such an awful person. But
while they give you this idea, they really don’t make a great
effort to build on the idea. I found it to be more confusing
than compassionate.
As you can probably
guess, I preferred Last Man Standing to Yojimbo. I
think that when Yojimbo was being made, the director
(Kurosawa) only wanted to make a good martial arts film, and in
that aspect he succeeded. But I believe that Last Man
Standing succeeded where Yojimbo failed.
Last Man Standing was able to make a
film about the ability of humanity to survive, even in people in
whom you’d least expect it. Even the worst people have a shred
of hope left for an honest world. Even traveling souls can make
an impact, where the many who lived and prospered there,
couldn’t. |
|
|
|
Return
to Top of Page |
|
|
|
|